Salt Water System

[spawn]

Hmmm.. I think maybe the reason that they changed their minds on the ozonator may not have anything to do with better understanding of how it works with the ACE sytem as I alluded to in my earlier post. I think the engineers still beleive that the ozone will consume chlorine produced by the ACE system. If the ozone is used, then all things being equal, the chlorine output of the ACE sytem would have be increased. So from an engineering point of view it si better to not use the ozonator.

From the perspective of the bean counters however, it makes sense to install both the ozonator and the ACE system. Higher output from the ACE system will likely shorten the life of the $300 per set electrodes. In addition, the dealer can sell $300 replacement Freshwater ozonators. I don't know if the ozonator would shorten the life of the $300 per set Tri-x filters, but it certainly wouldn't extend it. Add in the effect on spa covers and headrests and the addition of the ozonator sweetens the bottom line.

I think that I would go with the engineers on this one and leave the ozonator disconnected.

[chem geek]

We have seen fairly consistent reports on this forum that if you are using the tub every day then an ozonator helps by roughly cutting the chlorine demand in half (depending on how many people are soaking every day and the size of the tub). If you are only using the tub once a week, then an ozonator increases chlorine demand by roughly doubling it (i.e. it uses up more chlorine than it saves). On the other hand, having an ozonator in a spa that isn't used a lot does give some level of insurance to keeping the water in good shape, but there are inconsistent reports about this and a better approach is to ensure that there is chlorine in the spa at all times. So whether it's worth having the ozonator in a tub that doesn't have a lot of use is a tougher call -- probably not worth it.

High bather load in a residential spa is relatively easy to achieve. Some rough guidelines for bather load that Dupont uses (they make MPS non-chlorine shock) are the following:

High bather load: <1000 gal/bather/day

Medium bather load: 1000-5000 gal/bather/day

Low bather load: >5000 gal/bather/day

The soak or swim times for the above are in the 20 minute range. So for a 350 gallon hot tub, high bather load is more than 1 person-hour of soaking per day so 2 people for 30 minutes or 3 people for 20 minutes.

[spatech (the unreal one)]

Hmmm.. I think maybe the reason that they changed their minds on the ozonator may not have anything to do with better understanding of how it works with the ACE sytem as I alluded to in my earlier post. I think the engineers still beleive that the ozone will consume chlorine produced by the ACE system. If the ozone is used, then all things being equal, the chlorine output of the ACE sytem would have be increased. So from an engineering point of view it si better to not use the ozonator.

From the perspective of the bean counters however, it makes sense to install both the ozonator and the ACE system. Higher output from the ACE system will likely shorten the life of the $300 per set electrodes. In addition, the dealer can sell $300 replacement Freshwater ozonators. I don't know if the ozonator would shorten the life of the $300 per set Tri-x filters, but it certainly wouldn't extend it. Add in the effect on spa covers and headrests and the addition of the ozonator sweetens the bottom line.

I think that I would go with the engineers on this one and leave the ozonator disconnected.

I always love conspiracy theories. I doubt this comes into play here but its always good to consider all possibilities and sometimes the conspiracies end up being true (we all know the moon landings were staged in an airport hanger, there really is a face on the moon left over by aliens who visited there years ago and Elvis is alive and kicking). An ozonator should have little effect on filters though.

My theory would be that new spa owners get an ozonator included in their spa then get the chlorine generator added but wondered why they have an ozonator that they paid for but its not being used (yeah it was "included" but we all know its not free but is erally just factored into the price so in reality the customer paid for it and most people understand that). Its easier to tell them to go ahead and use it. This makes people feel better when all their paid for equipment is in use and I doubt it use/non-use would be a factor either way in most cases.

[spawn]

Hmmm.. I think maybe the reason that they changed their minds on the ozonator may not have anything to do with better understanding of how it works with the ACE sytem as I alluded to in my earlier post. I think the engineers still beleive that the ozone will consume chlorine produced by the ACE system. If the ozone is used, then all things being equal, the chlorine output of the ACE sytem would have be increased. So from an engineering point of view it si better to not use the ozonator.

From the perspective of the bean counters however, it makes sense to install both the ozonator and the ACE system. Higher output from the ACE system will likely shorten the life of the $300 per set electrodes. In addition, the dealer can sell $300 replacement Freshwater ozonators. I don't know if the ozonator would shorten the life of the $300 per set Tri-x filters, but it certainly wouldn't extend it. Add in the effect on spa covers and headrests and the addition of the ozonator sweetens the bottom line.

I think that I would go with the engineers on this one and leave the ozonator disconnected.

I always love conspiracy theories. I doubt this comes into play here but its always good to consider all possibilities and sometimes the conspiracies end up being true (we all know the moon landings were staged in an airport hanger, there really is a face on the moon left over by aliens who visited there years ago and Elvis is alive and kicking). An ozonator should have little effect on filters though.

My theory would be that new spa owners get an ozonator included in their spa then get the chlorine generator added but wondered why they have an ozonator that they paid for but its not being used (yeah it was "included" but we all know its not free but is erally just factored into the price so in reality the customer paid for it and most people understand that). Its easier to tell them to go ahead and use it. This makes people feel better when all their paid for equipment is in use and I doubt it use/non-use would be a factor either way in most cases.

No I don't think there is a conspiracy but maybe your scenario is not far from the truth.

Buyers order tubs with $300 ozonators and learn that they should not be used with the ACE system. Perhaps some ask for a $300 credit when the ozonator is removed - the dealers don't like to do that so...

Now the dealers are leaving the ozonator in the tub and connected. Maybe it goes against what Hot Springs determined during their R&D period but now they change the story and the dealers don't have to address the issue.

The devil's advocate could argue the points I made earlier. There is no question that leaving the ozonator in the tub and connected will mean more $ for the dealer in the long run. Some would say that this is consistnet with other decisions made in the design of Hot Spring spas seem to favor dealer revenue over user value.

[rsc92]

Hmmm.. I think maybe the reason that they changed their minds on the ozonator may not have anything to do with better understanding of how it works with the ACE sytem as I alluded to in my earlier post. I think the engineers still beleive that the ozone will consume chlorine produced by the ACE system. If the ozone is used, then all things being equal, the chlorine output of the ACE sytem would have be increased. So from an engineering point of view it si better to not use the ozonator.

From the perspective of the bean counters however, it makes sense to install both the ozonator and the ACE system. Higher output from the ACE system will likely shorten the life of the $300 per set electrodes. In addition, the dealer can sell $300 replacement Freshwater ozonators. I don't know if the ozonator would shorten the life of the $300 per set Tri-x filters, but it certainly wouldn't extend it. Add in the effect on spa covers and headrests and the addition of the ozonator sweetens the bottom line.

I think that I would go with the engineers on this one and leave the ozonator disconnected.

I always love conspiracy theories. I doubt this comes into play here but its always good to consider all possibilities and sometimes the conspiracies end up being true (we all know the moon landings were staged in an airport hanger, there really is a face on the moon left over by aliens who visited there years ago and Elvis is alive and kicking). An ozonator should have little effect on filters though.

My theory would be that new spa owners get an ozonator included in their spa then get the chlorine generator added but wondered why they have an ozonator that they paid for but its not being used (yeah it was "included" but we all know its not free but is erally just factored into the price so in reality the customer paid for it and most people understand that). Its easier to tell them to go ahead and use it. This makes people feel better when all their paid for equipment is in use and I doubt it use/non-use would be a factor either way in most cases.

No I don't think there is a conspiracy but maybe your scenario is not far from the truth.

Buyers order tubs with $300 ozonators and learn that they should not be used with the ACE system. Perhaps some ask for a $300 credit when the ozonator is removed - the dealers don't like to do that so...

Now the dealers are leaving the ozonator in the tub and connected. Maybe it goes against what Hot Springs determined during their R&D period but now they change the story and the dealers don't have to address the issue.

The devil's advocate could argue the points I made earlier. There is no question that leaving the ozonator in the tub and connected will mean more $ for the dealer in the long run. Some would say that this is consistnet with other decisions made in the design of Hot Spring spas seem to favor dealer revenue over user value.

Your point is well taken, however, my position is as follows:

Since the oznonator kills bacteria, I prefer to run it with the ACE system. Maybe that will result in higher operating costs over the long term, but it also will likely minimize the number of water problems I have. For me, it is a matter of convenience versus cost. I believe that the ozonator and ACE system together will purify the water in a superior manner as compared to just the ACE system. Think about it. The reason the ozone systems were incorporated into spas was to offer a higher level of sanitation while reducing chemical usage. I have to believe that the water will be cleaner and better sanitized with the ozonator and ACE system operating in unison.

Even if I get an extra month or two between water changes, that will save me time over the ownership period of the spa. For me it is about convenience.

[PoolSpaGuy30]

Hmmm.. I think maybe the reason that they changed their minds on the ozonator may not have anything to do with better understanding of how it works with the ACE sytem as I alluded to in my earlier post. I think the engineers still beleive that the ozone will consume chlorine produced by the ACE system. If the ozone is used, then all things being equal, the chlorine output of the ACE sytem would have be increased. So from an engineering point of view it si better to not use the ozonator.

From the perspective of the bean counters however, it makes sense to install both the ozonator and the ACE system. Higher output from the ACE system will likely shorten the life of the $300 per set electrodes. In addition, the dealer can sell $300 replacement Freshwater ozonators. I don't know if the ozonator would shorten the life of the $300 per set Tri-x filters, but it certainly wouldn't extend it. Add in the effect on spa covers and headrests and the addition of the ozonator sweetens the bottom line.

I think that I would go with the engineers on this one and leave the ozonator disconnected.

I always love conspiracy theories. I doubt this comes into play here but its always good to consider all possibilities and sometimes the conspiracies end up being true (we all know the moon landings were staged in an airport hanger, there really is a face on the moon left over by aliens who visited there years ago and Elvis is alive and kicking). An ozonator should have little effect on filters though.

My theory would be that new spa owners get an ozonator included in their spa then get the chlorine generator added but wondered why they have an ozonator that they paid for but its not being used (yeah it was "included" but we all know its not free but is erally just factored into the price so in reality the customer paid for it and most people understand that). Its easier to tell them to go ahead and use it. This makes people feel better when all their paid for equipment is in use and I doubt it use/non-use would be a factor either way in most cases.

No I don't think there is a conspiracy but maybe your scenario is not far from the truth.

Buyers order tubs with $300 ozonators and learn that they should not be used with the ACE system. Perhaps some ask for a $300 credit when the ozonator is removed - the dealers don't like to do that so...

Now the dealers are leaving the ozonator in the tub and connected. Maybe it goes against what Hot Springs determined during their R&D period but now they change the story and the dealers don't have to address the issue.

The devil's advocate could argue the points I made earlier. There is no question that leaving the ozonator in the tub and connected will mean more $ for the dealer in the long run. Some would say that this is consistnet with other decisions made in the design of Hot Spring spas seem to favor dealer revenue over user value.

of course why would any company and its hundreds or thousands of employees with families need revenue maybe all the big names like Hot Spring, D1, Jacuzzi, etc. should just close their doors and we can all buy 3k crap tubs from costco...and while were at it Lexus, Cadillac, and Mercedes my as well close up shop as well, I mean a 18k Hyundai gets the job done as well as a 50k Lexus right? how about Rolex, Bretling, and Patek, who needs a 10k timepiece when a $20 Timex works just as well? Do you have any comprehension of basic business principles at all? or do you just grind your axe all day long? if you don't like it don't buy it, because there are hundreds of thousands of people that do. And your comment about revenue over user value is so ludicrous I won't say much other than it is obvious you have no first hand insight other than probably 1 bad experience I'm assuming

[spawn]

Hmmm.. I think maybe the reason that they changed their minds on the ozonator may not have anything to do with better understanding of how it works with the ACE sytem as I alluded to in my earlier post. I think the engineers still beleive that the ozone will consume chlorine produced by the ACE system. If the ozone is used, then all things being equal, the chlorine output of the ACE sytem would have be increased. So from an engineering point of view it si better to not use the ozonator.

From the perspective of the bean counters however, it makes sense to install both the ozonator and the ACE system. Higher output from the ACE system will likely shorten the life of the $300 per set electrodes. In addition, the dealer can sell $300 replacement Freshwater ozonators. I don't know if the ozonator would shorten the life of the $300 per set Tri-x filters, but it certainly wouldn't extend it. Add in the effect on spa covers and headrests and the addition of the ozonator sweetens the bottom line.

I think that I would go with the engineers on this one and leave the ozonator disconnected.

I always love conspiracy theories. I doubt this comes into play here but its always good to consider all possibilities and sometimes the conspiracies end up being true (we all know the moon landings were staged in an airport hanger, there really is a face on the moon left over by aliens who visited there years ago and Elvis is alive and kicking). An ozonator should have little effect on filters though.

My theory would be that new spa owners get an ozonator included in their spa then get the chlorine generator added but wondered why they have an ozonator that they paid for but its not being used (yeah it was "included" but we all know its not free but is erally just factored into the price so in reality the customer paid for it and most people understand that). Its easier to tell them to go ahead and use it. This makes people feel better when all their paid for equipment is in use and I doubt it use/non-use would be a factor either way in most cases.

No I don't think there is a conspiracy but maybe your scenario is not far from the truth.

Buyers order tubs with $300 ozonators and learn that they should not be used with the ACE system. Perhaps some ask for a $300 credit when the ozonator is removed - the dealers don't like to do that so...

Now the dealers are leaving the ozonator in the tub and connected. Maybe it goes against what Hot Springs determined during their R&D period but now they change the story and the dealers don't have to address the issue.

The devil's advocate could argue the points I made earlier. There is no question that leaving the ozonator in the tub and connected will mean more $ for the dealer in the long run. Some would say that this is consistnet with other decisions made in the design of Hot Spring spas seem to favor dealer revenue over user value.

Your point is well taken, however, my position is as follows:

Since the oznonator kills bacteria, I prefer to run it with the ACE system. Maybe that will result in higher operating costs over the long term, but it also will likely minimize the number of water problems I have. For me, it is a matter of convenience versus cost. I believe that the ozonator and ACE system together will purify the water in a superior manner as compared to just the ACE system. Think about it. The reason the ozone systems were incorporated into spas was to offer a higher level of sanitation while reducing chemical usage. I have to believe that the water will be cleaner and better sanitized with the ozonator and ACE system operating in unison.

Even if I get an extra month or two between water changes, that will save me time over the ownership period of the spa. For me it is about convenience.

You may want to go ahead and add the silver cartridge while you are at it. Another step in the same direction - more cost for another means of sanitation. There are people who use dichlor or bleach and like to use both ozone and Nature2 for the same reason. Note there will also be a bit of added complexity. The compelling reason for the ACE system is to simplify the sanitation process. Eventually the ozonator will cease to function and you will need to replace it or make adjustments after you notice a problem, if in fact, the ozonator was actually effecting the santizing process.

[rsc92]

Spawn - I am not going to entertain the silver ion cartridge. You may be right, the ozonator may have little or no benficial impact; but you may also be wrong. If I am right, then I get the added benefit of superior sanitation. If you are right, then I might waste $300 to $600 over the life of the tub. Looking at the entire investment, the $600 extra is a rounding error.

[spawn]

Hmmm.. I think maybe the reason that they changed their minds on the ozonator may not have anything to do with better understanding of how it works with the ACE sytem as I alluded to in my earlier post. I think the engineers still beleive that the ozone will consume chlorine produced by the ACE system. If the ozone is used, then all things being equal, the chlorine output of the ACE sytem would have be increased. So from an engineering point of view it si better to not use the ozonator.

From the perspective of the bean counters however, it makes sense to install both the ozonator and the ACE system. Higher output from the ACE system will likely shorten the life of the $300 per set electrodes. In addition, the dealer can sell $300 replacement Freshwater ozonators. I don't know if the ozonator would shorten the life of the $300 per set Tri-x filters, but it certainly wouldn't extend it. Add in the effect on spa covers and headrests and the addition of the ozonator sweetens the bottom line.

I think that I would go with the engineers on this one and leave the ozonator disconnected.

I always love conspiracy theories. I doubt this comes into play here but its always good to consider all possibilities and sometimes the conspiracies end up being true (we all know the moon landings were staged in an airport hanger, there really is a face on the moon left over by aliens who visited there years ago and Elvis is alive and kicking). An ozonator should have little effect on filters though.

My theory would be that new spa owners get an ozonator included in their spa then get the chlorine generator added but wondered why they have an ozonator that they paid for but its not being used (yeah it was "included" but we all know its not free but is erally just factored into the price so in reality the customer paid for it and most people understand that). Its easier to tell them to go ahead and use it. This makes people feel better when all their paid for equipment is in use and I doubt it use/non-use would be a factor either way in most cases.

No I don't think there is a conspiracy but maybe your scenario is not far from the truth.

Buyers order tubs with $300 ozonators and learn that they should not be used with the ACE system. Perhaps some ask for a $300 credit when the ozonator is removed - the dealers don't like to do that so...

Now the dealers are leaving the ozonator in the tub and connected. Maybe it goes against what Hot Springs determined during their R&D period but now they change the story and the dealers don't have to address the issue.

The devil's advocate could argue the points I made earlier. There is no question that leaving the ozonator in the tub and connected will mean more $ for the dealer in the long run. Some would say that this is consistnet with other decisions made in the design of Hot Spring spas seem to favor dealer revenue over user value.

of course why would any company and its hundreds or thousands of employees with families need revenue maybe all the big names like Hot Spring, D1, Jacuzzi, etc. should just close their doors and we can all buy 3k crap tubs from costco...and while were at it Lexus, Cadillac, and Mercedes my as well close up shop as well, I mean a 18k Hyundai gets the job done as well as a 50k Lexus right? how about Rolex, Bretling, and Patek, who needs a 10k timepiece when a $20 Timex works just as well? Do you have any comprehension of basic business principles at all? or do you just grind your axe all day long? if you don't like it don't buy it, because there are hundreds of thousands of people that do. And your comment about revenue over user value is so ludicrous I won't say much other than it is obvious you have no first hand insight other than probably 1 bad experience I'm assuming

I am sincerely sorry if something I said offended you - perhaps I should have chosen my words more carefully.

I agree that companies need revenue - that's why they are in business. I was wondering why the intial instruction not to use ozone was reversed and another poster and I thought perhaps it may be push back from the dealers. Leaving the ozone connected means more money in their pockets, short term and long term - whether or not it is a conscious decision for that reason - who can tell but it is a fact. I have no problem with companies making money by ethical means. Do you have any problem with companies making money by unethical means?

I don't really understand your point about hot tub companies closing their doors and leaving the market to manufacturers who sell through Costco. Not sure how your point about cars and watches comes into this either but I am willing to hear you out. Explaining what you mean would make it easier for me to understand your point rather than being sarcastic but no doubt it is more difficult to do sometimes.

Actually, I know a fair amount business but don't consider myself an expert.

Good advice - if you don't like it - don't buy it. Not everyone knows what they are buying, unfortuantely. My business background and sense of business ethics suggests that the more the customer knows about what he is buying, the better. Are you concerned that informed consumers would not buy your product? With hundreds of thousands of buyers, I don't think you have too much to worry about from the few who may become better informed through these forums.

Revenue over user value? I believe that if the change in Hot Springs position regarding ozonators with the ACE was to put more $ in the dealer pocket that is a decision putting revenue over user value. Another example - selling customers five propreitary filters when other manufacturers produce tubs that provide perfectly adequate filtration with one or two industry standard filters. Another example -use of proprietatry parts that are only available from the dealer at a cost mcuh higher than similar industry standard parts. Generally the developement of add-ons that will keep customers coming back to the Hot Springs dealer for pricey replacements - freshwater cartridges, ACE electrodes etc. Actually I didn't want to start listing them but you seemed to be asking for examples.

Again, sorry if I offended you and I am interested in hearing your thoughts. I am open to being educated and having my mind changed. After all, this is a forum, a place for the exchange of ideas and opinions.

[Spa_Guru]

Revenue over user value? I believe that if the change in Hot Springs position regarding ozonators with the ACE was to put more $ in the dealer pocket that is a decision putting revenue over user value. Another example - selling customers five propreitary filters when other manufacturers produce tubs that provide perfectly adequate filtration with one or two industry standard filters. Another example -use of proprietatry parts that are only available from the dealer at a cost mcuh higher than similar industry standard parts. Generally the developement of add-ons that will keep customers coming back to the Hot Springs dealer for pricey replacements - freshwater cartridges, ACE electrodes etc. Actually I didn't want to start listing them but you seemed to be asking for examples.

Exactly my point, and Arctic is just as bad if not worse, ever try to find 2-1/4" PVC?

Neither brand of spas is any better than Sundance or Marquis, and the consumer value, considering they are going to get pillaged for replacement parts for years, is actually far less.

[spatech (the unreal one)]

I believe that if the change in Hot Springs position regarding ozonators with the ACE was to put more $ in the dealer pocket that is a decision putting revenue over user value.

I think the word "if" should have been in bold letter and capitalized there. Certainly IF the powers that be sat around a table and decided that they should tell people to use the ozonator because it'll cause other parts to fail sooner in the future (as they were ringing their hands) then yes, that would be putting revenue over value. I just don't see why you think that is what brought about his ozonator change and I'm not sure if you really do or if you just don't like the company in general but I don't see that as being whats behind this change to use the ozonator.

[spawn]

Very true - we can't say for sure why they changed their position on this. But I found it surprising because other posters in the forum have been reporting how their HS dealers have been describing the long careful R&D path that went into the ACE system. It would seem that they definitely had decided not to operate the ozonator with the ACE system. Now they say leave it hooked up. Did the engineers change thier minds? I doubt it.

Will leaving the ozonator in the tub and connecting it result in more dealer revenue and cost to the consumer? Absolutely.

Do I dislike Watkins / HS? No. I believe that they are worthy of inclusion in your list of half dozen better quality spa makers. Having said that, I believe that their reliance on proprietary parts, including costly parts that will definitely require periodic replacement as described above, make them more costly to own than some of their competetitors in your list. I think that many people who buy them do not realize that at the time of purchase. There are probably some buyers who are aware of this and buy a HS tub anyway because they feel it is the right tub for them.

Maybe I am a little more sensitive to the whole ACE system thing and motivation because I have a neighbor who has a HS tub with the previous autosanitzing system that the ACE replaced. It was intended to simplyfiy water maintenance and, by the way, provide "better feeling water" too. It did not live up to his expectations. I understand the ACE is a new system - hopefully it will turn out better.

[spawn]

Spawn - I am not going to entertain the silver ion cartridge. You may be right, the ozonator may have little or no benficial impact; but you may also be wrong. If I am right, then I get the added benefit of superior sanitation. If you are right, then I might waste $300 to $600 over the life of the tub. Looking at the entire investment, the $600 extra is a rounding error.

rsc92 - No arguement from me - you have an idea of what the situation is and are making a conscious decision - not everyone does and some would choose to save the $600 plus longer life on ACE electrodes etc.. For what it's worth, my tub came with an ozonator and I use it, but I will not replace it after its time has passed.

[spatech (the unreal one)]

Spawn - I am not going to entertain the silver ion cartridge. You may be right, the ozonator may have little or no benficial impact; but you may also be wrong. If I am right, then I get the added benefit of superior sanitation. If you are right, then I might waste $300 to $600 over the life of the tub. Looking at the entire investment, the $600 extra is a rounding error.

rsc92 - No arguement from me - you have an idea of what the situation is and are making a conscious decision - not everyone does and some would choose to save the $600 plus longer life on ACE electrodes etc.. For what it's worth, my tub came with an ozonator and I use it, but I will not replace it after its time has passed.

I assume you're saying that's how much the electrodes cost but where does a $600 savings come from? Running the ozonator shouldn't cause the electrodes to fail sooner in a tangible way IMO. Ok I guess I could see where they may fail in 4 yrs and 10 months instead of 5 years because it effects the chlorine generation slightly but you'd need to calculate that extra cost based on it failing about 5 or 10% sooner so its really not the total cost mentioned and its not a big deal IMO (BTW I'm making numbers up obviously as an example to to make a point since I don't know life of those electrodes).

I just don't see any controversy behind using the ozonator vs not using it in this case (like ozonators for standard sanitizing routines for sure) which is probably why the manufacturer doesn't seem to be making a big deal about it either way and probably is telling people they can use it now because they know it doesn't matter much either way but makes people feel better since they already have it.

The reality is the ozonator is already there. You can use it or not, it shouldn't have a major impact either way if the chlorine generator is working well IMO. If the ozonator wasn't there I wouldn't go buy one to add in (then again I'm cheap and wouldn't buy a chlorine generator in the first place as I'm a simple chlorine kind of guy). Down the road when the ozonator fails (as they all do eventually) I probably wouldn't replace it if I was still using the chlorine generator.

[dark rider]

If it gives you more piece of mind, then I don't think you're going to encounter any problems using ACE with the ozonator, and HotSpring knows that, so I'm not really surprised by their position.

Personally, I think the ozonator is overkill in conjunction with ACE though. Based on my limited results with ACE so far (3 weeks), I'm going to maintain some CYA base (about 10-15ppm) using dichlor. I seem to get more consistent readings this way without having to rely on the boost function, except for parties, etc. Basically, I'm using it as a more automated dichlor/bleach alternative, and so far it has been stabile and very reliable this way, and the water is crystal clear and feels great on the skin with the lowered calcium.

That said, in my limited usage, ACE has proven very effective at maintaining consistent FC readings, which is typically the most difficult part of a manual dosage regimen. With manual dosing, you are effectively entering the dose all at once. Even if it's at the same time everyday, it still makes it more difficult to consistently keep FC within the target range. Not to say it can't be done, because there are plenty of vigilant water testers here that have shown that it can, but ACE is continually working to spread out the dosing in much smaller segments, rather than providing unstabilized chlorine/bleach all at once. It's there to remember, even when you're not. Once CYA runs low (I picked up a Taylor K2006 test kit for more reliable testing), I will shock with more dichlor to maintain some CYA, but otherwise, I just need to maintain sufficient salt in the system to keep creating the unstabilized chlorine. I'll still probably test more than the recommended once per month, but I really like the ACE system, especially since it really didn't cost me anything extra in my final negotiated price.

[dark rider]

I was looking through my ACE documentation, and this is a statement from the install sheets included with the separate ACE manual. For those considering using the ACE with Ozone...

Optional: If spa usage is light to average, the Ozone Unit will not be needed. If Ozone Unit is used, disregard steps below and add female Quick Disconnect Adaptors to Ozone power terminals on IQ 2020 box then attach Ozone power connectors to one side of Female Quick Disconnect Adapter and Cell Control Box power supply connector to other side.

Part number to use ACE with Ozone is cited as 72855, Female Quick Disconnect Adaptor

[spawn]

I was looking through my ACE documentation, and this is a statement from the install sheets included with the separate ACE manual. For those considering using the ACE with Ozone...

Optional: If spa usage is light to average, the Ozone Unit will not be needed. If Ozone Unit is used, disregard steps below and add female Quick Disconnect Adaptors to Ozone power terminals on IQ 2020 box then attach Ozone power connectors to one side of Female Quick Disconnect Adapter and Cell Control Box power supply connector to other side.

Part number to use ACE with Ozone is cited as 72855, Female Quick Disconnect Adaptor

dark rider - Thanks for posting this info from the manual. This leads me to believe that there was not so much a policy change from "don't use the ozonator" to "use the ozonator" as it was just maybe the dealers were not up to speed on the light use vs high use aspect of the way the ozonator and ACE system work together.

[spawn]

If it gives you more piece of mind, then I don't think you're going to encounter any problems using ACE with the ozonator, and HotSpring knows that, so I'm not really surprised by their position.

Personally, I think the ozonator is overkill in conjunction with ACE though. Based on my limited results with ACE so far (3 weeks), I'm going to maintain some CYA base (about 10-15ppm) using dichlor. I seem to get more consistent readings this way without having to rely on the boost function, except for parties, etc. Basically, I'm using it as a more automated dichlor/bleach alternative, and so far it has been stabile and very reliable this way, and the water is crystal clear and feels great on the skin with the lowered calcium.

That said, in my limited usage, ACE has proven very effective at maintaining consistent FC readings, which is typically the most difficult part of a manual dosage regimen. With manual dosing, you are effectively entering the dose all at once. Even if it's at the same time everyday, it still makes it more difficult to consistently keep FC within the target range. Not to say it can't be done, because there are plenty of vigilant water testers here that have shown that it can, but ACE is continually working to spread out the dosing in much smaller segments, rather than providing unstabilized chlorine/bleach all at once. It's there to remember, even when you're not. Once CYA runs low (I picked up a Taylor K2006 test kit for more reliable testing), I will shock with more dichlor to maintain some CYA, but otherwise, I just need to maintain sufficient salt in the system to keep creating the unstabilized chlorine. I'll still probably test more than the recommended once per month, but I really like the ACE system, especially since it really didn't cost me anything extra in my final negotiated price.

dark rider - Are you also testing combined chlorine or just free chlorine? Also, when you say you shock with dichlor to maintain some CYA, do you mean that you are just adding some dichlor to raise CYA a bit or are you really shocking in the conventional sense by adding a high amount to oxidize waste and lower combined chlorine?

[dark rider]

The K2006 can give you accurate readings for both FC and CC, but as I understand it, CC is only really an issue if chloramines are causing inaccurate FC readings, so that there is a big disparity between FC and CC. In the end, FC is really what you're after, and if there is a disparity, the question is why, since apparently the FC isn't sufficiently oxidizing waste.

Shocking in the true sense isn't really necessary with ACE or even a dichlor/bleach regimen, provided FC is consistently maintained in the water, as bacteria will be oxidized and algea will never have a chance to grow or spread. I don't really think it matters if you shock as a precautionary measure, provided you don't use the tub until the FC returns to acceptable levels, or you could just add smaller amounts of dichlor over a longer period of time to keep the CYA reserve at an acceptable level. I think there may also be another chemical means to get a CYA reserve without relying on dichlor. I remember reading something, but can't recall where... Maybe Chem Geek or one of the other resident gurus will chime in, since I'm by no means an expert at water chemistry. I've learned quite a bit , but still have a ways to go.

[chem geek]

The CYA level in spas seems to drop by around 5 ppm per month when one is trying to maintain around 30 ppm CYA. So using Dichlor for one day per month is usually enough to take care of this. If one wants to add CYA directly one can add it with pure CYA (though that takes a while to dissolve) or Instant Pool Water Conditioner, but these are only able to be purchased in large pool-size quantities so are real overkill for a spa. Using Dichlor is easy and something you can get in smaller quantities for a spa.

[spawn]

The K2006 can give you accurate readings for both FC and CC, but as I understand it, CC is only really an issue if chloramines are causing inaccurate FC readings, so that there is a big disparity between FC and CC. In the end, FC is really what you're after, and if there is a disparity, the question is why, since apparently the FC isn't sufficiently oxidizing waste.

Shocking in the true sense isn't really necessary with ACE or even a dichlor/bleach regimen, provided FC is consistently maintained in the water, as bacteria will be oxidized and algea will never have a chance to grow or spread. I don't really think it matters if you shock as a precautionary measure, provided you don't use the tub until the FC returns to acceptable levels, or you could just add smaller amounts of dichlor over a longer period of time to keep the CYA reserve at an acceptable level. I think there may also be another chemical means to get a CYA reserve without relying on dichlor. I remember reading something, but can't recall where... Maybe Chem Geek or one of the other resident gurus will chime in, since I'm by no means an expert at water chemistry. I've learned quite a bit , but still have a ways to go.

I was just curious if you were also monitoring combined chlorine occassionaly since I understood that even though free chlorine readings can be in range, combined chlorine could still be higher than desired.

[dark rider]

Thanks Chem Geek. It looks like simple dosing of dichlor about once a month will do it to maintain CYA reserve.

spawn, I haven't specifically made a habit of monitoring combined chlorine separately at this point. However, if it's something you want to measure/monitor, you can do so by testing TC and subtracting FC, to give you CC. I personally haven't seen the need though, because it's easy to detect in the form of the chloramine smell if it's high. It will also cause your FC level to go down faster and chlorine demand to go up until all of the waste has been oxidized.

[rsc92]

My ACE System has been up and running for about a week. I have a Vanguard, Set Spa Size to 6 and Usage to 4. One or two people use the spa daily for 20 minutes. The ozonator is functioning as well. My FC level has been ranging between 0 and .5. Do I need to add dichlor to give it a boost? The water is crystal clear. Suggestions?

[dark rider]

My ACE System has been up and running for about a week. I have a Vanguard, Set Spa Size to 6 and Usage to 4. One or two people use the spa daily for 20 minutes. The ozonator is functioning as well. My FC level has been ranging between 0 and .5. Do I need to add dichlor to give it a boost? The water is crystal clear. Suggestions?

A tub with a non-stabilized .5ppm reading for FC is actually much higher than a tub that is CYA stabilized and has an FC reading of the same value. I think that a .5 non-stabilized reading falls pretty close to the target range of 3-5ppm for a stabilized tub. However, I have seen more consistency and less fluctuation using dichlor to maintain at least some CYA reserve. After adding dichlor slowly to get a reserve (my Grandee likes the 10-15ppm CYA reserve range), your FC should climb up into the 3-5ppm range and stay there.

Congrats on the Vanguard BTW! How are you enjoying it?

[spawn]

Thanks Chem Geek. It looks like simple dosing of dichlor about once a month will do it to maintain CYA reserve.

spawn, I haven't specifically made a habit of monitoring combined chlorine separately at this point. However, if it's something you want to measure/monitor, you can do so by testing TC and subtracting FC, to give you CC. I personally haven't seen the need though, because it's easy to detect in the form of the chloramine smell if it's high. It will also cause your FC level to go down faster and chlorine demand to go up until all of the waste has been oxidized.

Yeah, I was curious if you were going to watch the CC. I test FC with the Taylor kit a couple of times per week and rarely check CC but when I did recently I was surprised to read CC @ about 2. Similar to you I add dichlor occasionaly to replenish CYA and dose with bleach after each use (as opposed to your constant dosing with the ACE system). I had never shocked the tub with this fill which is at about 3.5 months. I had not noticed any problems and was surprised with the CC reading. Anyway, with the CC reading I got I decided to go ahead and shock. I am trying to decide whether to check CC more often or just do an occassional scheduled shock as many people do. In the chemistry forum it looks like some people may be shocking with the ACE system, but I think maybe most do not. Suppose it depends on your settings and use patterns.